Episode 4 Sunday Morning Live

The Church of England will today consider whether it should be more

As some schools consider gender neutral uniforms too,

we discuss is there enough understanding of

Scotland is introducing a law to make it easier for doctors to use

We ask should organ donation be compulsory?

We meet the Yorkshire farmer who has had eight organs replaced.

I am well aware of the fact that when we were told the organs had

been found and I was a match, that there was a family somewhere going

through absolute grief and pain. They had just lost their loved one.

Also on the programme, television legend Jerry Springer,

who speculates about running for President against Donald Trump.

If I ran against Donald Trump in America, there really would be a

wall built because you would have to build a wall to keep Americans from

trying to get out. All that coming up and Samanthi

Flanagan is here ready We want you to get in touch

with your views on our You can contact us by

Facebook and Twitter. Don't forget to use

the hashtag #bbcsml. Or text SML followed

by your message to 60011. Texts are charged at your

standard message rate. Or email us at

[email protected]. However you choose to get in touch,

please don't forget to include your name so I can get you involved

in our discussions. Let's start with an item that

might get you and our guests here talking -

transgender rights. Later today, the Church of England's

ruling body, the General Synod, will discuss introducing a special

religious ceremony to welcome in the new identity of those

who are transgender. The move comes as transgender rights

have become increasingly high profile, with some schools

introducing gender neutral And, in a world first,

a Canadian parent is currently battling to have "gender

unspecified" written on their new So is there enough understanding

of transgender issues? Joining us now are Juno Dawson,

an author and journalist, Mike Davidson is the CEO

of Core Issues Trust, Radhika Sanghani is a journalist

and Dr Joanna Williams The Church is steeped in tradition

and change comes slowly. Are we asking too much for the

church to change like this? I don't think so. You have got to remember

that being transgender and having faith are not mutually exclusive and

if you are religious there should nowhere more welcoming than your

place of worship, whether it is a church, mosque or synagogue. I am

not especially religious but I like to think if I were Christian there

would still be a home for me in the church. The church is trying to find

ways of accepting transgender people. I think everybody needs to

be welcome in the church of Christ but I worry. Yesterday, the General

Synod passed a motion where it banned conversion therapy. People

who want to go the other way, who don't want to be gay, they are not

allowed to be recognised and they can't have helped. What I would call

for is a real understanding before we make such a momentous change, as

is about to happen. If there is a momentous change, and the General

Synod are just discussing it, if they do change, would you be happy

with that? I would be concerned that what we are doing is to encourage

people to align their belief system and their body. In other words, they

will encourage their body to follow what they believe in their mind.

Christians are about renewing their mind and following the mind of

Christ, very often. I think what that means is very often we have a

belief system and if our bodies are going in the other direction, then

what we are encouraged to do is to make sure that we make our bodies

are obedient to the mind of Christ. That is a very different approach.

Lots of movement over here. Nodding or shaking your head? What is

interesting is how this tells us something about the importance of

individual feelings, which apparently can override biology, and

now the will of God as well. I am not an especially religious person

but I think if you are religious, then a belief in God would be

fundamental to how you perceive your own identity. It seems now we are

saying to people, however you feel, if you don't feel like a man or

woman, God will recognise that. Religion is irrelevant, biology is

irrelevant, be whoever you want to be. Much of the debate goes around

children's identity. What do you feel about that when you are giving

the child the option to choose? I think that is very problematic and

it can cause psychological issues with a child to say to children as

young as three or five, how do you feel about your gender? Do you feel

like a boy or girl? That can confuse children. Is it problematic? I

completely disagree. That is suggesting that being transgender is

something people choose, that it is a trend, and we know that is just

not true. RNA the rest of us transgender? Just me Akpa Akpro as

the person -- are any of the rest of us transgender? Just me! When I was

only four I knew it was crazy that people were telling me I was a boy

and this was the 80s. There was no pressure from teachers and schools

or parents. I knew 100% with every inch of my being not only did I want

to be a girl but all being well I was. Juno was three. Other children

are under five. What is your view? You were smirking. I want to respect

that experience. You haven't had that experience. I disagree. As a

young man, I felt I had attractions to the same sex but there was

something in my mind that told me I was not comfortable with it. I

didn't buy into the notion that it was just systemic, phobia. --

systemic homophobia. Just that the country were telling me they were

wrong. They were my own values that made me feel that I wanted to get

married, have children, and I wanted to live as a heterosexual man. I

know people have different opinions, but the point here is the

possibility is trans-will be recognised fully in the church and

they will be encouraged but people who want to go in the direction I

went and are being stopped from doing that. The reason is because it

is claimed that orientation is in all cases unchangeable. What do you

mean that people like you are being stopped? My clients, I work with

individuals, who for whatever reason want to come out of homosexual

practices. And what do you do? I work with them to support their

goals. Just as Josie has a goal here. The goal to leave homosexual

practices and live in a different way. It's like not being true to

himself and his clients? I was not warned that there was going to be a

gay conversion therapist on this show and I would not have agreed to

come on because I am feeling ambushed. We don't want to get too

much into that debate because it is not the issue here. It Mike being

true to himself? That is for him to decide. I have not lived his

experience. This is why it is very difficult. Very often I get wheeled

out as the trans person to give my lived experience. That's week we had

the Stonewall schools report and I am a role model, and it says eight

out of ten transgender people and not just thought about killing

themselves but has tried to kill themselves. Undoubtedly we have had

a huge rise in the visibility of transgender people. And the fact

that I am on this show, people are watching this. But we have also not

had a rise in understanding. We had man gives birth on the front page of

The Sun and also a uterus for men. The tone of the conversation around

transgender people, we have got to move it on. It is not a freak show,

not a circus. Are we getting the tone wrong? Children are incredibly

unhappy. Attempting to take their lives. This is relativistic. We are

throwing everything up in the air and saying you can't be whoever you

want to be and we have privileged the idea of being true to yourself

about biological reality. The fact is that men do not get pregnant. If

you have the biological components necessary to get pregnant and give

birth, you are biologically female. You are woman. We send out very

confusing messages to young children who might be going through a phase.

To children and adults, but especially children. Be what you

want, that is your right, but when we start telling children that men

can get pregnant and have babies... So how do you respond when Juno says

that at three years old... I have young children and I know that young

children who are three years old had all kinds of ideas about their

gender and their role in the world and their individual identity. Lots

of them do grow up and don't carry on thinking and feeling and acting

as they did when they were three. I think it is really important that we

allow children the freedom to grow and develop and recognise that.

Sometimes a phase is just a phase. I think there is so much

scaremongering here. People the thought of a small child in nursery

hearing about trans, what will happen? This disregards the fact

that there are medical experts out there. If a child feels like they

are trans and they are going to go down that path, there are medical

experts along the way. I just doubt that a three-year-old would wake up

one day and feel like they are trans. You mention those headlines

and you criticise them. Turn it on its head. Transgender activists are

preventing education, the transgender police. The powerful

trans lobby, one of my favourite myths, that we have power in

society. Just coming here on the underground couple was giggling at

me. There is no power. Going back to what was said about trans children,

the greatest myth and possibly one of the most damaging, is that three

and four -year-olds are being wheeled into surgery. It just

doesn't happen. I used to be a primary school teacher and there was

a young person in the class above me, six and seven. This was a family

in crisis. A child had been born biologically male and their family

was really struggling. They were referred to the Tavistock in London,

the gender clinic, and nothing happened to that child in terms of

medical intervention but the family received a much-needed support. As

it happens, that child did go on to make steps towards a medical

transition later on. Some don't. As children it is much more about

having that conversation, supporting them, supporting their family. That

is not medically. It is about well-being. We have got some strong

comments coming in. Lee says that transgender issues are on our face

constantly and we are sick of it. It has gone beyond understanding. But

this person says it is about compassion, empathy and

understanding, so why do trans people feel they need special

treatment? Jenna says the church is doing a good thing trying to

understand the world around them. Anything that can spread acceptance

and love is good. And Sarah said more should be done to educate

children at school about trans issues that they can understand and

learn about humanism. We have put that comments to our

panel. It is too much and it is shoved in our face? That couldn't be

further from the truth. We are hearing more about trans issues,

which is amazing, but we have not reached that level of understanding

at all. The Stonewall report that was mentioned, it is everything.

Teenagers are still being bullied, they are self harming, trying to

kill themselves and it is horrific. There is not this level of

understanding. But we know that in this country parents are not free to

be involved in working through the issues with their children. Social

services are stepping in and removing children from families. If

society too quick to act to help people to change? I think we are

getting there, slowly. I don't think they are too quick at all. I don't

think anybody who has gone through this process, as Juno says, I don't

think so. My heart goes out to the child that you are describing but

what we have in schools at the moment goes way beyond supporting

individuals. If you look at render neutral school uniforms, I have no

problem with children wearing whatever they want. But when you

present it in the school setting as a special gender neutral uniform

because people can be gender non-binary, I think that goes way

beyond supporting individuals and saying you can wear what you like.

It is opening up the idea that gender is something that you can

choose. I will give the final word to Juno. I worked in schools for a

long time. I started to see things filtering through when I was still

at the coal face, as it were. It is more about schools being prepared. I

am an author now and I travel around schools with my teen fiction all the

time. It is unheard of now that there wouldn't be one trans and

non-binary teenager in every school that I go into. Usually the

librarian introduces them to me and they are pleased to meet me and say

I am their role model. That is so lovely. This conversation is

reminiscent of something. I was at school in the 80s and 90s, educated

under Thatcher's section 20 eight. Think of the children! Think of the

children! That is what it is reminiscent of. The LGB community

had made leaps forward after 1967. What have we got to worry about? The

children, and they introduced that measure, and it feels like 20 years

on that is where we are right with trans awareness in schools. There is

this slight hysteria. Think of the children, but actually the children

are fine. Not a lot of agreement but a really

interesting debate. Now let's meet a man who has

written his own chapter in television history -

Jerry Springer. His show, a mixture of confrontation

and confession played out in front of a raucous studio audience,

has been panned and praised. But it is still running

after 25 years. Jerry has also been

a news presenter, actor, musician and politician,

most notably as Democratic Jerry! Jerry!

I was told I was going to be interviewed you, Jerry Springer, and

all I wanted to do was say Jerry! Jerry! Does that happen to you?

Constantly. 25 years and counting of your show, why does it have this

continued appeal? It is so outrageous, it is a circus. It is an

escape for an hour of what people do our lives. The first show would

probably be crazy. It kind of becomes part of pop culture. You can

say I am having a Jerry Springer moment and everyone knows what you

are talking about. In any way, do you think the set of could be seen

as exploitative? That is not right, everything is voluntary. You have

too want to be on and you get to talk about whatever you want to talk

about. Now, because these people don't have a lot of money we say,

oh, they are trash. But you have wealthy people, famous people,

good-looking people doing the exact same things and they write books and

they appear on the late-night shows, talk about the latest person they

slept with, drugs, whatever, and we cheer them. It is a double standard.

Do you still enjoy doing it? About the only reason I do it is because

it is fun. If we went out to dinner one evening and I would say, how was

your day? You would tell me how your day was and you would say, how was

yours? I would say, well, I got this guy who married his horse. Who is

going to have a better story? And that happens, you featured a guy who

married his horse. Yes. You have a soft spot for the UK, you were

born... I was born here, I am an Anglophile. You were born in a tube

station during the war. I was told at Highgate. I had to tell you, I

don't remember. More personally about you, on the BBC you Today

Programme, Who Do You Think You Are,, which looked at your history.

-- on the BBC you did a problem. Your family roots, some terrible

stories in certain circumstances? It blew me away.

My sister and I grew up new wing that we had lost family, they were

killed in Nazi Germany before we were born.

Where was she sent? Resettled is a euphemism for being deported to the

extermination camp. When I look back, my parents

sheltered us. We did not notice those scars. When my dad got near

80, that is the first time I noticed, there is this story, my mum

was scared to death of him driving. She always wanted him to sell the

car. One day I said, mum coming you get so nervous, you would do is such

a favour if you got rid of it. And he says... He said, well, I'll keep

the car until I80, because you never know when you have to getaway. I am

going, oh, my. It stuns me, even until this day. He was standing

there and he was dead serious. He was not saying it is something

dramatic. We had been living in America for... This was the mid-80s,

so for 35 years already. And I went, how often... ? How often must see

have thought? Did he think about that every night? Was he always

afraid every time the telephone rang or banging on the front door?

Having those little insights towards the end of your father's life into

what was perhaps going through the... His mind, did it change how

you viewed people? My whole thing about this whole issue of

immigration and everything like that, boy, what these poor people

must be going through. These people are trying to get away. They are

families, children, they want to live. Why would we ever not want to

do everything we can to help them? Did you have faith growing up? You

are from Jewish parents? I go to temple, belong to the temple,

support it. I am very Jewish. People sometimes lose some face when they

learn more about those awful stories. We are not sure perhaps how

God operates or whatever, and I don't pretend to know. Here is what

I know. 99% of what we are is just a gift. Under any moral, whatever your

religion, you say thank you. And the way you say thank you is by giving

something back, by doing something for others, treating them well. To

realise that could have been me. So of course I will try to help a

refugee, I will not make fun of somebody because they are not as

smart as me, let's say, or whatever. You sound like you have a good

perspective from your upbringing. You were elected mayor of Cincinnati

in your early 30s, that was your proudest moment? It is the best job

I had. Do you see yourself re-entering politics? I am

announcing my candidacy for Prime Minister of Great Britain. I think

we can do better. At the moment anything can happen, now we have a

reality TV star in the White House. I am so sorry, I hope I am not

responsible for that. We're not talking President Springer? I was

born in England. Even if I could run for president, if I ran against

Trump in America there really would be a wall built, you would have to

to keep Americans from trying to get out. Trump/ Springer, I am out of

here! He would like that, the ratings would be good. Can you

imagine that debate? For my Jerry Springer moment, I feel like I

should throw a chair at you or something, this has been very calm.

Don't go Jerry Springer on me! I won't. Thank you so much, I have

really enjoyed talking to you. And I'm glad Emma didn't

throw that chair at him! Still to come on

Sunday Morning Live: The survivor of the 7/7 London

bombings working with Muslim mothers to stop their children turning

to terrorism. Mothers are the change-makers, they

protect their children, they are able to nurture and prevent them

from becoming radicalised. The Scottish Government has

announced plans to bring in a new system of encouraging

people to donate organs. It will be based on the idea

of presumed consent. Patients are assumed to agree

to donate potentially life-saving organs after death,

unless their families A similar system was introduced

in Wales in 2015 but in the rest of the UK you have to opt in,

with a donor card, for instance. We'll discuss the issues

involved in a moment. First let's meet Adam Alderson,

a Yorkshire farmer who owes his As far as I knew I was a fit and

healthy young man with the rest of my life to look forward to with my

partner, Laura. In 2013I was diagnosed with a rare form of

cancer. I had never heard of it at the time. It took me a few years to

be able to say the word. At the time I was told it was widespread. Once

they opened me up, they realised the disease was much further advanced

and nothing more could be done, really. I was home, palliative care

was not really a future to look forward to. I did not know how long.

I was essentially dying with not a lot of life to live and I was

really, really poorly. The pain was just ridiculous. I could not eat any

more through my mouth, it was through a tube to my stomach. It was

a bleak existence. I didn't give up. I am a

Yorkshireman. I took the attitude of this will not be to me. The only

option to remove that disease meant having an organ transplant. At that

time there were only three of these operations done, so the risks were

quite high, but what was the alternative? I was going to die

anyway. I wanted to go through with it. The operation took 17 hours and

involves removing most of my abdominal organs, including my

stomach, small bowel, large bowel, pancreas, spleen, gall bladder and

abdominal wall. Also my liver was shaved quite hard as well. Then I

was transplanted with new organs from a donor. And then I was given

the news when I came around, by my wife, that it had been 100% success.

I did not believe it at first, Laura had to get the surgeon that did the

operation to come and confirm that I was OK. OK with the new organs and a

new life. Not only do I feel really well, I run now, I did the three

peaks a few weeks ago in less than ten hours, which is a fine

achievement. I got married five weeks ago. We are about to embark on

the adventure of a lifetime. I came up with this idea of doing a 10,000

to 15,000 mile trek through Europe into Asia, ending up in a land that

tall, Mongolia. You could call it a honeymoon, it is the first holiday

since the wedding. I am well and have a life to look forward to. I am

aware of the fact that when we were told the organs had been found and I

was a match, that there was a family somewhere going through absolute

grief and pain. They had just lost their loved one. Since the operation

I have written to the donor, which was tough, I did not know where to

start to thank them for that decision in those hours of grief and

need. My opinion on the opt out is that I think if you are willing to

receive organs to save your life, then let's be willing to donate them

to save someone else's. Adam Alderson, with a lot

to thank organ donors for. So should organ

donation be compulsory? Joining me now are Charles Michael

Duke, a vlogger and campaigner, Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence is senior

rabbi at Finchley United Synagogue, Gurch Randhawa is a professor

in diversity and public health and Sally Bee is

a health campaigner. Charles, starting with you, Tevez

your current situation? Currently I am waiting for a double lung

transplant, which I have been for over two years now. It is because of

something called cystic fibrosis, which I was diagnosed with at birth.

I carried on living with that condition, and still do, up until

about 18 when I was approached, really, with the fact that my health

had got to a point where my lungs were no longer fit for purpose and I

needed new ones. How did you feel when you got bad news? Very hard to

take up the time, I was adamant I did not need one and I would be

fine. I did not feel it was something I needed. I am an actor, I

was on stage doing a show and my lung collapsed. I finished the show.

I did not know my lung collapsed at the time. Just a lot of pain?

Adrenaline got me through it, I felt weird, I went to hospital the next

day, asking for antibiotics to get to the rest of the shows and they

said, Charles, your loan has collapsed. This was on Christmas Eve

to add to the sob story! So I went into hospital and it was the turning

point for me to make me realise that it was something that I needed if I

wanted to one, carry on living and two, have a life rather than just

exist. That was over two years ago. Gurch, so many people need Ocon logo

and orders, including Charles. -- organ donors. We should change the

rules so it is opt out throughout the whole country? We have seen from

Adam's story the huge life transforming achievement that

transplantation can have. Three people a day are sadly dying waiting

for a transplant and we need to look at the evidence, which shows that

most people who refuse organ donation refuse because they say is

a family we never discussed organ donation. The key challenge for us

as a society is how do we ensure that conversations around organ

donation take place. At the moment in the UK family consent rates are

about 60%, if we could get those up to about 80% we would radically

reduce the number of people waiting for a transplant. Slobodan opt out

system work better? It would be a big change, look at Wales? -- so

would an opt out system work better? There has not been an increase in

family consent rates in Wales. They say in Wales, the Government, there

are more oak -- organ donors and more people are being saved, if you

listen to the Government. The number of transplants have increased. In

the UK we introduced lots of clinical training, and increased

number of trained surgeons had transplantation. Over 2008 and 2013

B had a 50% increase in organ donations in the whole UK, which is

possible, but the key thing is how do we drive up family consent rates?

It does not change if you have opting in or opting out, we have to

solved this by having schools, colleges, places of worship,

business sector, everybody talking about organ donation. Sally, nothing

will change if we have opt in or opt out?

I don't believe in opting out. I think it has got to be a

conversation. Speaking as a potential recipient or donor in the

future, it seems to me that if the whole of society thinks we are on

the list anyway, it takes women need to have the conversation. It doesn't

matter if anybody is on the list if their next of kin withdraws the

consent, the consent is gone. Doesn't having an opt out system

encouraged the conversation? No, I think it has the opposite effect. It

makes people sit back on their laurels and think it is a foregone

conclusion that actually it isn't. You have got to have the

conversation and everything we can possibly do to make sure that more

people have a conversation with their families to understand. I have

sat down with my family. I have three children and two have agreed.

My 13-year-old has said she doesn't believe in it and if anything

happens to you, I don't want you to be cut up and I don't want anything

happening. This is an ongoing conversation I need to have with her

as time goes on to make sure she understands fully. Obviously working

in this arena, but if I wasn't, if the government just decided

everybody was on the organ donor list, I don't think I would have

that conversation with my family, which is the most important part of

this. Sally says that she is a potential donor and receiver and you

are receiver. Do you agree with that? I completely agree with the

fact that the conversation, no matter what system is in place, is

by far one of the most important things. Would you be in favour of

opt out? Personally, I am in favour of opt out. There is evidence to

support the fact that it does increase the pool of potential

donors, which increases the pool of organs being donated and it

increases my chance of receiving a transplant. I am all in favour of an

opt out. But it is a soft opt out meaning the family can withdraw

consent, and at the moment we are in a soft opt in which means the family

can withdraw consent. While I disagree with your views on whether

or not opt out is right, I completely agree that the

conversation and dialogue should happen. Which is why we are having

this discussion on Sunday morning and that is brilliant and

encouraging people to talk about it with their families. It is nice to

have a panel that agrees on one thing, if not the same way. Why

shouldn't everybody have to donate their organs? From a religious

perspective, our bodies and our lives are not entirely our own. When

we die, we take nothing with us. That we have no property and once we

are dead, it is not our body to dispose of, but even more it is not

the state to make that decision for us. I am not a state person. I think

that people should be donors and they should choose to be donors. I

had the discussion with my family when I became convinced of that. My

confidence in being a donor should the need arise is not because I

carry a donor card saying that according to religious practice,

Jewish religious practice, I am happy to be a donor and it is not

because I'm listed on any registry, but it is because I know that my

wife and my children although that is what I want. I am not going to be

the person making that choice. I am not going to be the person concerned

about my body after the event. I am not going to be the person worrying

in hospital about whether or not my heart or lungs or kidney or any

other organ are going to be of use to people. My family are the people

who will be worried about that, and they know it is what I want. They

know they can go to their rabbi, not me under the circumstances, that

they can go to their rabbi, who knows what is the point of death

according to Jewish law and how to affect my wishes. What have you got

for us? I'm joined now by Alex Rosenberg,

an intensive care consultant at Brompton and Harefield Hospital

in South East London. Good morning. When somebody dies,

what is the process you need to go through to get permission for their

organs to be donated? The first and really vital step of the process is

that the patient has got to have received all of the treatment that

they should for their condition. And it be decided by the team, in

conjunction with the patient's family, that unfortunately they will

not survive the illness, and at that stage we reach a point where we can

start to consider organ donation. It has got to be at the end of that

patient's active management. There are some concerns that people think

if they are on the donor list then they might not be getting the full

treatment because their organs are valuable. Is that a legitimate

concern? Absolutely not. One of the things we have got to really convey

to anyone watching this, anyone we speak to about this, being on the

organ donation list has no affect on the treatment you receive. The two

things are entirely separate. Once you get to the end of your

treatment, at that stage, we consider whether or not someone is

possible to be an organ donor. There are two routes by which they can

become one. One of which is that two highly specialised doctors with a

great deal of training can do lots of examinations and prove that the

patient's brain has no function whatsoever, in which case we can

declare the patient brain dead, and they are in a state where they can

go to the operating theatre and the organs can be retrieved. We have

heard a lot about people's families making this decision at an emotional

time and the panel have taught difficult that conversation is. Is.

Is there too much responsibility on the family to make that decision at

the moment? That is very difficult. The onus of responsibility should be

on the individual. If you believe that you want to be an organ donor

which I personally do and I believe other people should as well, then

they should convey those views to their family. Then the

responsibility is not on the family. They are just giving their

relative's wishes after they are not able to any more. We have asked

whether organ donation should be compulsory and Tadd says it is anti

freedom because my body belongs to me after death. The government has

no right to my body. I am an organ donor and I don't know why people

are squeamish. Take what you need. It will rock or the burned away. And

this one on Twitter, everyone's body should be available after death

because it saves lives and that is more important than religious

beliefs. But this one, if you're not registered as a donor, then you

can't receive an organ yourself. Very interesting points. Yes, this

is a difficult area. How do we go about getting more people to have

the conversation? That is what we are all agreed on. By discussing it

here on national television, going into schools, having people at their

places of work talking about it. It is by us starting to push that first

domino, as it were, starting the conversation somewhere on a big

platform and hoping that people at home continue to have that

conversation in their own homes with their families. And that is that. I

think that is how we do it. You have had the last word in our debate but

not the last word on all of this because we hope the conversation

will continue. Thank you to you all. This week marked the 12th

anniversary of a day when 52 people were killed and more than 700

injured when four bombs went off One of the people on a Tube train

that was attacked was Sajda Mughal. That moment changed her life,

as Wendy Robbins discovered. Even today, 12 years on, when I get

onto the tube, it brings it all back to me. When I do, I relive the whole

experience. The 7th of July, 2005, began like any other working day for

London at Sajda Mughal. She went to her local tube station and headed

for her usual spot in the front carriage. It was a busy morning of

the platform was very busy. I got onto the tube somewhere in the

middle. If I had got into the first carriage, I would not be alive today

telling you my story. Just seconds after the train left King's Cross, a

huge explosion ripped through that front carriage. What do you remember

after the bomb went off? The train shook. Thick black smoke was filling

up the carriages. I had to take my blazer off to cover my face. People

started to bang on the doors and the windows, kicking at them. I thought

this was it. 7th of July, 2005, the day that I die. The tube train had

been targeted by suicide bomber Jermaine Lindsay. He was one of four

terrorists whose attacks killed 52 people and injured hundreds more

that day. What were your thoughts when you realised these bombings had

been carried out by Muslim men? That shocked me. I am a Muslim. I know

this is not what Islam teaches us in any way. It says in the Koran to

take one innocent life is as if you have taken the whole of humanity and

mankind. I knew from that point that these four individuals had been

brainwashed and the question was how could we have prevented this from

happening? Part of the answer, she believes, lies with Muslim mothers.

Sajda gave up her job in banking to teach a ground-breaking programme

which teaches women to spot early signs of radicalisation in their

families and tackles the dangers of online extremism. Ladies, what are

the types of signs that you think you would notice if maybe your child

or your relative was on this pathway of extremism? Today she is then

touring local mothers in Portsmouth, home to a reported eight people who

have joined jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq. These mothers have been

asked to be filmed anonymously. What brings you to the course today?

Portsmouth has suffered quite badly with extremism in the past. We don't

want another family to be affected. Through the programme we are

learning that it is subtle changes in children that mothers can spot

first of all. Mothers are the first point of contact. If they know what

is going on, they know what signs to look out for in their children. The

internet is playing a part in radicalising individuals.

Specifically young people. I developed the web guardians

programme for them. This raises awareness and highlighted and that

while the internet can be a good place, it is also a dangerous place.

We are talking about the signs to look out for if their loved one is

at risk. The kinds of conversations they can start having, how they can

take an active part in their lives. How do you have that conversation

with your child? What have you learned about that? To be open and

honest with them. To discuss things we see on the news. To ask them if

anything is troubling them, they have heard anything. The important

thing is to build that relationship an early age. So that children can

come to the mums and dads. Mothers are the change-makers. When you

educate and empower them, they protect their children. They are

able to nurture their children, they are able to prevent them from

becoming radicalised. That then means that we protect ourselves and

society from being affected by terrorist attacks. Sitting here at

King's Cross, reliving the memories, it is very hard. Knowing what I know

and what happened on that day, the 7th of July 2005, would I get back

onto that tube on the Piccadilly line? Yes. Because of the work that

I do and the difference it makes to prevent attacks and radicalisation.

Sajda Mughal and her work to stop radicalisation.

Now, school assembly is a familiar part of many children's lives.

It's also a time when mainstream schools in England and Wales

are required to have an act of worship, broadly Christian-based,

unless their parents choose that their children opt out.

But two high school pupils in Cardiff have launched a petition

calling on the Welsh Assembly to end compulsory collective

And one of them, 15-year-old Rhiannon Shipton, joins

us now with her dad, Martin.

Good morning. Rhiannon, why do you think it is not right to hold

prayers in school? Lots of us are atheists or from other religions so

I do not think it is fair we are forced into religious prayers when

we do not believe in what is being said? About what to others say in

school? Some agree with it because they have the same beliefs and they

think it is pointless to be reciting the Lord's Prayer, but the Christian

ones -- lots of them agree with us but some of them think we are

against Christian rights. Do you really feel forced? Can't you just

opt out and not do anything during prayers? I think it is wrong, the

fact that we have to do it. Sometimes the teachers keep you in

if you don't say it and they make you say it loudly enough until you

have left the room. Martin, be honest, did you force your daughter

to do this? No, she was coming home from school,

complaining about it several times. I know her friends did the same with

their parents. I said, don't just complain, do something. I told her

that the Welsh Assembly has a procedure where you can raise an

online petition and get a committee at the Assembly to look at it and it

went from bad. She went and saw the clerks of the committee, the online

petition was set up and it went to where it is now. I have teenagers,

my kids complain about a lot, I don't get them to do a petition. Are

you taking it too far? I don't think so, it is principal and comes

down to a matter of human rights and children's rights. I think it is

wrong in 2017 that we still expect children to save the Lord's Prayer

when they don't want to. Good to talk to you, Rhiannon and Martin.

The Welsh government says that the collective worship should be

sensitive to the beliefs and non-beliefs of different peoples and

they may opt out and schools must adhere to that.

We're all used to charities asking for donations.

But what happens when that becomes pestering?

Well, this week new rules have been introduced to clamp down

on charities making nuisance requests for money.

The Fundraising Preference Service will allow people to say they want

a specified charity to stop contacting them by phone,

And if they don't comply, the charities could face heavy fines.

I met the chairman of the regulator, Lord Grade, and asked him why

I think there has definitely been a backlash by the British public,

generally, to some bad cases. People are saying, yeah, we are fed up with

being pressurised. It puts at risk the incredible goodwill and

generosity of the British public. What is wrong with some of the new

ways that charities fundraising? There are laws about if you hold

somebody's data willingly, if you give your details to -- to somebody

they cannot pass that on to anybody they want, that is a basic rule,

that is a law of the land. Then there is the question of if you are

being bombarded, how do you stop it? You should have the right to be able

to say I do not want to hear from you guys. I want to hear from you,

but not you. We need to give the public the means to get control of

that, which is what we have just launched, the Fundraising Preference

Service. How exactly does that work? You can tell us online or on the

phone that you want to hear from A, B, C charity but not X, Y, Z. That

is registered and the charity is obliged not to contact you again. We

have a possibility, ultimately, of charities being fined up to ?25,000,

is that enough of a deterrent for the big charities making millions?

The power to give fines rests with the information commissioner's

office, if they deem a charity has breached the laws and the codes on

data sharing they are entitled to find them, it could be ?25,000, ?1

million, ?25. Could this lead to charities going of business? I think

the risk of doing nothing, in the long term, would be much more

damaging. We are a very giving nation and we have to nurture that

and cherish it. And keep the goodwill of the British public,

meaning charities ethically fundraising. If we go on unchecked

the way we work, I think there would have been a real public backlash.

Lord Grade, making sure charities toe the line.

Are violent prisoners being released too early?

That question has been raised after latest figures reveal that

between 2012 and 2016, offenders on probation were charged

with nearly 400 murders and around 2,300 violent and sexual offences.

So what is the balance between allowing criminals out

under supervision as part of their rehabilitation versus

Here to discuss that are Mark Johnson -

a former prisoner and now founder of the charity User Voice -

and Peter Cuthbertson, the director of the Centre for Crime

The re-offending rates we've heard about this week are pretty shocking.

Wouldn't we all be safer if we locked violent

And we did not release them early on licence? Basically, I think you have

a situation at the moment, I think those figures show you that we put

people in the system but do not do anything with them while they are in

there. That is why we have had historically high reconviction rates

overall. We have always had this thing. My point would be that it is

what we do the minute they go in. At the moment we have had Justice cut

by half, prison staffing numbers cut by half, privatisation, 70% of

probation services. There is no money to get involved in the real

point, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a good word,

surely that is the aim, to rehabilitate prisoners so they can

come out and not reoffend? It is very important and always worth

attempting, but the attack -- the offenders themselves choose to

commit crimes again and again. By the time the average person gets to

prison they have committed so many offences they are already hardened

criminals and turning them around is very difficult.

I agree with your question, putting them in for longer sentences work in

protecting the public and they have a lower reoffending rates. So they

choose to become criminals, or once they have become criminals they

cannot get back into society? Everyone chooses to commit crimes or

not. But people have different questions and follow different

routes -- different chances. Lets be realistic with what you can do with

hardened criminals. For every nice case of a life turnaround there are

thousands of victims of crime because we release people after

short sentences. Hardened criminals, people who have done really bad

stuff, there are victims and families affected. Are they beyond

repair? For me the whole issue is really emotive. Rather than

having... We have this political environment in which house to be

seen to be tough on crime. We have had five Justice ministers over this

term of Government, they tinker with the system and do not get to the

real point to say how do we change somebody's behaviour? We know where

the journey starts with offending, you have just said that, coming from

dysfunctional childhood. 70% of the people in prison at the moment have

drink and drug related and mental health issues, but we are just

locking them up. That is no consolation to the family of a

murder victim, relatives of a murder victim, would you look them in the

eye and tell them that, that we need to rehabilitate? Someone might have

committed an awful crime against them. What I would advocate is

educating people on what rehabilitation is. I do not think

prisons are behind four waltz, people get educated via the tabloids

and the tabloids are generated by this very emotive polarised view of

murderers and stuff like that. I have taken a lot of the public into

prison to see our work, etc, they never had the same perception coming

out as they did when they went in. When Eubank somebody up the 24 hours

a day, -- when you bang somebody up for 24 hours a day and let them out,

we miraculously expect them to rehabilitate. The system is designed

to mitigate risk. Prison governors, they are doing probably the most

dangerous job ever at the moment because of the staffing numbers etc,

they are there to contain, to contain a problem. Not to address

the true cause. If we want a vision of the future, looking at building

more prisons etc and locking people up through believing that they made

this moral decision to commit a crime and not look at the mitigating

circumstances, looked to America. One in 90 people in America are

locked up. For longer, yeah, but their reconviction rates are higher

than here. Looking at Norway, Denmark etc, they had a really smart

approach to crime. I will let you respond in a moment, Samanthi has a

special insight. I'm joined now by Leroy Skeet, who

was convicted of a violent crime. What were you in prison for? GBH

with intent. What was your sentence? Section two life sentence with a

six-year terror, I served 11 years. Life did not mean life, should it? I

think that is ridiculous. People should be given a second chance. We

live in a Christian society and it says everyone should be given a

chance. A second chance. What helps rehabilitate you? I realised I was

being used as a political football, once I rehabilitate me, only you can

rehabilitate yourself, nobody else can do it, you have to want it for

yourself. You don't believe the prison system has any responsibility

towards your rehabilitation? Yes, but with the cuts, what do you

expect them to do? Simple question, probably no simple answer, does

prison work? If you stick someone imprisoned the 24 hours a day and

treat them like an animal and you expect them to come out and behave

like a normal member of society, it is ridiculous. Treat somebody like

an animal, they will behave like an animal. I was brought up in the care

of the local authority from ten, beaten front-end, it made me more

vicious and bitter towards society. In order to give compassion you had

to receive it. Treat somebody like an animal, they will behave like

one, it is that simple. Google thank you, Leroy. You treat somebody like

an animal and they will come out like one, where is your compassion?

I don't think any prison treats people like an animal. Locked up the

23 hours a day? It is dangerous to say there is only a choice between

rehabilitation and putting someone imprisoned. Often the longer

sentences produce the lower reoffending rates, we need to look

at complementary rehabilitation. If there is one priority for prison, is

a punishment or rehabilitation? I would say protecting the public.

Should they be punished or is it rehabilitation? It is punishment for

the reason that they have often committed hundreds of offences a

year. Protect the public for as long as you can. We hear about violence

in prisons and the conditions in prison, are we creating more violent

offenders inside? It is really dangerous to imply that people are

going in a relatively innocent and coming at a much more violent.

People get other punishments and they have much higher reoffending

rates in many cases. Ten seconds, what would you like to see? More

rehabilitation, and some kind of jointed system that is physically

through the gate to help people. When somebody goes into prison there

will be an inquiry immediately into the reasons they are there, by

professions. And it never happens. I absolutely disagree with you, prison

conditions at the moment are dire. We have the highest death and

suicide rates in custody at records, an epidemic of spice use and legal

high use, it is pretty poor at the moment. Thank you both.

That's nearly all from us for this week.

Many thanks to all our guests and you at home

But why don't you join Samanthi for live chat online after the show?

Yes, I'll be talking to Charles Michael Duke,

who we heard from in our discussion on organ transplants and is waiting

Log on to facebook.com/bbcsundaymorninglive

In the meantime, from everyone here in the studio and the whole

Sunday Morning Live team, goodbye.

When I think of the world we inhabit, everyone will think,